ASHAQ HUSSAIN FACTOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance projected by the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he laid a motion before the Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar, seeking his release from detention on the ground that he has already served the period of sentence, i.e., imprisonment for life. It is averred that since the respondents have failed to redress his grievance, he was left with no option but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of the present writ petition. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to release him from detention/custody/jail forthwith, as he has already completed 20 years and 11 days of sentence as on 31.05.2012.

(2.) The petitioner was facing trial before the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, Jammu. After completion of the trial, he was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 14.07.2001. Respondent-State questioned the said judgment before the Apex Court by the medium of appeal, Criminal Appeal No.889/2001. The said criminal appeal came to be allowed and the order of acquittal was set aside. The petitioner was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3 of Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, TADA Act) read with Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2003.

(3.) It is averred that the petitioner, after undergoing 14 years and 23 days of sentence, made an appeal to the respondents to consider his case for premature release in accordance with the provisions of J&K Jail Manual, 2000 (for short, Jail Manual). The respondents, however, vide order dated 14.09.2009, rejected his claim on the ground of being premature. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner challenged the said order by the medium of writ petition, OWP No.997/2009. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of rejection was set aside vide order dated 05.06.2010, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for his premature release in accordance with the recommendations of the Review Board read with the law applicable. Respondent-State questioned the same by the medium of appeal, LPA No.120/2010. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.10.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Writ Court, with the observation that rejection of the claim of petitioner for premature release would not deprive him from working out other remedies as might be available to him.